Friday, March 05, 2010

There were a bunch of huge bubble battles over the last four days, and those games resulted in a few key changes to our Friday field. Minnesota, after their loss at Michigan, and UAB, after their loss at home to Memphis, are now out, and Rhode Island and Memphis are now in. The Rams blew out Charlotte at home on Wednesday and slid into the bracket as a 12 seed. They got in just ahead of Virginia Tech (who we still think will lose at Georgia Tech on Saturday) and just ahead of San Diego State. The Aztecs beat Colorado State on Wednesday and should finish 11-5 in conference, but URI's computer numbers are still slightly better, plus we like URI's chances to get to the A-10 semis more than we like SDSU's chances to get to the MWC final. That's what it would take, as things stand right now, for each to get an at-large.

Memphis is in the field as a bid-stealer out of C-USA. The Tigers solidified themselves as the second-best team in the conference by completing a season sweep of UAB on Wednesday, and as much as we like UTEP, the Miners are far from a sure thing to win the C-USA title. Memphis' inclusion now gives us two bid-stealers in our bracket: the Tigers out of C-USA and Washington (a winner at Oregon on Thursday) out of the Pac-10.

The rest of the notable changes in the bracket were in terms of seeding, and a lot of those changes involved ACC teams. Maryland moved from the end of the 6 line to the top of the 5 line thanks to their upset of Duke, Florida State went from a 9 to an 8 thanks to their win over Wake Forest, and Clemson moved from an 8 to a 7 by beating Georgia Tech. The Demon Deacons fell from a 7 to a 9 as a result of their loss, and the Yellow Jackets fell from a 10 to an 11. Duke stayed put as the final 1 seed, despite losing to the Terps, on the strength of their eight Top 50 wins and the likelihood that they'll likely at worst lose in the final of the ACC tourney.

Provided Wisconsin beats Illinois on Sunday, the only difference between them and the tri-champs of the Big Ten will be that UW didn't get to beat Iowa twice (and MSU and OSU played each other only once). Given UW's much better collection of wins, why shouldn't they be seeded higher than at least MSU?

Wisconsin's OOC wins (Duke, Maryland, Marquette) are clearly better than Michigan State's (Gonzaga), but there's a good chance the Spartans finish two games better in conference. The Badgers have three quality Big Ten wins compared to the Spartans' two, but Michigan State has a big conference road win (Purdue), which Wisconsin doesn't have.

The long and short of it is that these two teams are very close in terms of overall resume. Their ultimate seed will be determined by how they fare in the Big Ten tourney.

how does SF look better than SH? SH hasn't lost to a team either in the NCAAT or on the bubble. SF has a bad loss to STJ and an eyepoppingly bad one to central michigan. both did very little OOC and are 8-9 in the BE with some nice wins and plenty of losses to the top of the BE. SH even has a slightly better RPI.

Matt, Why do you insist on putting 6th seeded BYU in the west? If they advanced to the regionals in Salt Lake City, the other teams would be very unhappy. New Mexico deserves to be put in the west as a reward for being the best team in Mountain West. BYU should be in the East.

I didn't insist on putting BYU in the west, their inability to play on Sundays did. The two regions that will play Thurs/Sat this year are the West and the East and NM was already in the East.

It is not as easy as saying "let's just put New Mexico in the East" because in the top 16, you have four Big 10 teams that all have to be in different regions, four Big East teams that all have to be in different regions, three SEC, and two Big 12. Where the teams on the 3 and 4 lines fall is often dictated by how the 1s and 2s are placed.

Also, the bracketing principles tell the committee to place teams as close to home as possible, the only exception being no home-court disadvantages for 1-5 seeds in the first round only. For all other placements the goal is a balanced bracket and geographical compatibility. There is no "fairness" and "unhappiness" rule built in for 6 seed region placement.

jim, i can't believe you are defending a home loss to the 187th ranked team because it was ONLY by 3 points. that was a brutal loss anyway you want to slice it. you also can't defend the loss to SC because it "only" was by 3 points. SC isn't even close to the bubble.

yes, SF did beat SH head-to-head, but it also was at home and an OT win, which counts for something. however, they never played again at SH.

SH is barely hanging onto the bubble and SF's profile is worse than SH's so i don't see the big deal about not really considering them at this point. however, if SF wins against UConn and then wins a couple of games in the BE tournament, then it will be back in the mix.

everyone is at least 96% -- even the bad ones like lunardi -- because all but the last 2 or 3 teams in are clear by selection sunday. lunardi's seedings usually are way off. that's where the heavy lifting takes places and where b101 blows away lunardi. lunardi still has KSU as a 1!

Definitely think lunardi is losing it! Did anyone else see doug gotlieb on sportscenter disagreeing with lunardi on connecticut? Great to see even his coworkers think he is crazy! K state as ther last numero uno? I would put purdue there over k state. Duke is still the only choice...until nova wins the BE tourney!

lunardi also has memphis as the 1st team out (and his bracket doesn't project out and assumes the season ended today). that's the same memphis team with 0 top 50 wins and losses to 2 teams ranked well over 100.

I am just baffled how Wichita St is not getting a mention... 50 RPI, and no losses @ home... sorry that shows a consistent team...th MVC always does well in the tourney... I even think Illinois State is better than some of the other teams sneaking into your 65...

We wouldn't be stunned if a bid-stealer come out of the MVC, but right now, we like C-USA's chances to have one more. Memphis' sweep of UAB impressed us enough to give them the nod over anyone in the MVC.

Every bracketologist who's any good has a 96% success rate in picking at-large teams. ESPN loves to throw around that number for Lunardi, though, because it sounds impressive to the average fan. Calling Lunardi the "The 10th Best Bracketologist Overall" (when you factor in seeding) doeesn't have the same ring to it, apparently.

Temple is a 3 seed because they have six Top 50 wins, a 15 RPI, and they are going to win the regular season title in the sixth rated conference in the country.

If Illinois loses their next two games, they're in the NIT.

UTEP's a lock if they beat UAB.

There's absolutely no way that Memphis can be the first team out in any bracket done as if the season ended today because of the reasons you brought up. There's also no way, if the season ended today, that Kansas State would be a 1 seed. Wanna try again, Lunardi?

Shulman normally makes valid points, but he failed to do his research on Lunardi. Joe Lunardi makes several mistakes and doesn't seem to understand the bracket principles. He should not get so much TV airtime. ESPN would be wise to hire Craig and Chris to dissect brackets. Joe Lunardi makes too many mistakes and makes ESPN look bad.

Lunardi doesn't predict/project. He does his bracket as if the season ended today.

If Purdue wins the Big Ten tourney, they'll be back on the 1 line. Anything less, and they won't be.

Mississippi State has a better chance than Mississippi does to get in because of their season sweep of the Rebels and the fact that (we think) they'll beat Tennessee and finish a game better in conference. That could all change in the SEC tourney, but going into the tourney, the Bulldogs (despite a weaker OOC resume) have the edge.

I'm confused how Washington is a 13 seed, but not one of the last 4 in. Do you think Miss. St. is a tournament team still if they lose to Tennessee and then beat Florida in the SEC tournament? I mean, they have 5 (FIVE!) loses against teams with an RPI of 100 or higher. I know the bubble is really weak this year, but I can't help but wonder how teams like VT, UConn, and SDSU don't have better resumes, assuming no more bad losses for either of them.

What are their chances for an at-large if they lose in the Pac Ten finals and win @ Oregon State this weekend? Their chances for an at large have to be better than ASU's at the moment, due to their wins over Cal and Texas A&M, right?

Washington is ahead of ASU at-large-wise (if they win at Oregon State), but they're still a long shot to get an at-large in the end. The fact that they will likely finish third in conference really hurts them.

lunardi doesn't predict future games -- his bracket always is if the season ended today.

even if KSU were to win the b12 tournament, they aren't getting a 1 seed. the b12 final is on sunday afternoon and the committee repeatedly has said that that game is over too late for it to matter (i personally think that it is bs and that they are too lazy to set up an either/or scenario). the only time 2 teams from the same conference get 1 seeds (and all of the other BCS teams only get 2 1 seeds) is when you have 2 dominating teams from the same conference that have shown dominance OOC. duke/unc have done this. the BE last year did it with pitt and louisville. a KSU team that got blown out by mississippi on a neutral court and that hasn't beaten a single BCS bubble team is not leapfrogging duke, purdue, ohio st or villanova for the last 1.

you guys keep contradicting yourselves. on one hand, you say the pac 10 is very weak. but on the other hand, you say cal played a tough schedule. wouldn't playing in a weak conference, drag down the rpi? but you seem to forget that cal has not beaten a top 50 team. does that not bother you at all??

The Pac-10 is the 8th ranked conference by RPI. That makes it a weak conference when compared to the other BCS conferences or the MWC and A-10. Even those conferences are most likely at 3 bids. OTOH, Cal has the overall 9th ranked schedule by RPI (see warrennolan.com for more info). The two facts that Cal plays in a weak conference and had a tough schedule are not contradictory. You know who they played OOC? Syracuse, Kansas, Ohio State, and New Mexico. That's the top 2 overall seeds plus a #2 seed and a #3 seed. And none of those games were at home. 2 were neutral and 2 were on the road. Lots of good teams would go 0-4 against that set of teams.

where is the contradiction in saying that the pac10 is weak (it is) and that cal played a hard schedule (it did)? there are these things called out of conference games that are independent of conference games. playing ohio st, syracuse, kansas and new mexico OOC (that's likely 2 1 seeds, a 2 and a 3) generally causes the strength of your schedule to tick up a notch.

I know RPI is only one factor, but I think Cal is in easily based on theirs. Any team from the major 6 conferences with an RPI in the 20s is in. And most teams from those conferences with RPIs in the 30s get in too.

I don't buy it. If Illinois is a bubble team so is Minnesota. Plus they have to play Wisconsin twice. Once this weekend, then again in the Big Ten QF. Beat them back to back, and maybe we'll talk. More likely Illinois wins one, then loses the other while barely scoring 40 points. If that's the case, see you in the NIT.

Those 4 games certainly help Cal. It makes it so that Cal has the 3rd strongest (by RPI) OOC schedule in the nation. Only two higher? Long Beach State and Connecticut. And playing in the Pac-10 is going to drag it down some, but not like they were playing in the MAAC. It should be noted that outside of those 4, Cal also played Murray State, which will be a huge schedule booster thank to Murray State's record.

2009 Western Kentucky2008 Western Kentucky2007 North Texas2006 South Alabama2005 Louisiana-Lafayette2004 Louisiana-Lafayette2003 Western Kentucky2002 Western Kentucky2001 Western Kentucky2000 Louisiana-Lafayette

I wouldn't call the committee lazy for not considering championship games that finish on Sunday afternoon. It can create a nightmare scenario if two potential bid stealers are going down to the wire. For example, when Georgia won the SEC Championship out of nowhere in 2008 on Sunday afternoon, the committee had to basically make either-or decisions. Imagine if two or even three potential bid stealers are playing on Sunday afternoon. You just can't consider everything.

no. i'm saying that playing probably the 4 hardest OOC games that anyone played, more than offsets playing in the 6th rated conference (the worst BCS one) to the point that cal's overall schedule was hard. it wasn't the hardest in the country but it definitely was hard and b101 recognizes that. also, it's not like cal's pac10 games were patriot league games.

Also, B101, I have a question about why Washington is picked as an autobid to win the Pac-10 when they're not in clear first in their conference, and when I don't think that they're clearly the best team in the Pac-10 either. (I was about to ask the same question as Zak earlier.)

So because Troy has never won the Sun Belt tourney, they can't win it this year? We assume you are alluding to the fact that Western Kentucky has done historically well in the Sun Belt tourney and that the Hilltoppers have played well down the stretch this season (they've won six in a row). We'll stick with Troy for now, but would it stun us if WKU won the tourney title? No.

A bid-stealer (like Washington) is not supposed to be the best team in the conference. That's why they are "stealing" the bid; they're swooping in during Championship Week, winning the conference tourney, and getting the automatic bid from a conference (like the Pac-10) where there are other at-large worthy teams. We think that besides Cal, Washington has the best chance to win the Pac-10 tourney, and since we aren't 100% convinced that the Bears will win the tourney, we went with the Huskies as a bid-stealer (with Cal getting an at-large anyway).

dan, why can't the committee set-up either/or scenarios on saturday night when it knows the match-ups for sunday? i can and it's not even my job. it's not like it takes 100 hours of work to say if georgia wins, we will slot it here and bump x team (and make sure no other rules are violated by adding georgia in that slot). if georgia loses, we leave the bracket as is. this isn't rocket science and the committee is lazy for ignoring the sunday games.

Texas A&M and Baylor have very similar resumes, but where the Bears haven edge e is in road/neutral games. Baylor is 9-5 in those games, and A&M is 6-7, and that's why Baylor is a few spot ahead on the S-curve.

I can not understand the infatuation with Ohio State (this isn't directed entirely at you either, just know you guys would respond) ... but how, right now could anyone possibly justify them being seeded over Temple or even Maryland. It's mind boggling to me.

The biggest discrepancy between the two teams is the number of big wins Penn State had last year. A quick glance at the toal of Penn State's wins makes it tough to see them getting left out. What killed the Nittany Lions in the end, though, (besides a bad RPI) was a home loss to fellow bubble team Wisconsin and a road loss at Iowa late in the season. Those losses eventually left them 10-8 and the 6 seed in the Big Ten tournament.

Virginia Tech has fewer wins and a worse SOS, but they have a better RPI and a weaker bubble in their favor. The bottom line with the Hokies is this: if they win at Georgia Tech this weekend, they're in. If not, they have a lot of work to do in the ACC tourney to get an at-large.

It's possible that both the MVC and C-USA (and the Pac-10, and the Horizon, and maybe the Colonial) have bid stealers, but we aren't going to give bid-stealers to everyone. It's just not realistic.

Nice points about VT. They are very likely to get the 4 seed in the ACC Tourney - so how does it shake out if they Lose at GT, Win the quarterfinal vs. FSU, Clemson or Wake, and then lose a close one to Duke in the semis?

Here's a very possible nightmare scenario. Say Old Dominion loses in the CAA semis to VCU, St. Mary's loses in the WCC final to Gonzaga, and Utah State loses in the WAC final to Nevada. What would the pecking order be for those 3 teams, and would they all still be likely to get in?

Penn State had 4 more top 50 wins than Virginia Tech has. Plus as bad as Penn State's SOS and OOC schedule was, it was still better than Virginia Tech's. The Hokies should not be rewarded for playing a cupcake schedule.

Ohio State is winning the Big Ten, ranked in the top 4 in the AP and coaches polls (this high up, this has actually shown great correlation to tournament seeds - more than RPI), and very good other (non-RPI computer) rankings. They are #6 Pomeroy for instance. On top of that, most of the Evan Turner-less games are going to be tossed in their evaluation.

So because Troy has never won the Sun Belt tourney, they can't win it this year? We assume you are alluding to the fact that Western Kentucky has done historically well in the Sun Belt tourney and that the Hilltoppers have played well down the stretch this season (they've won six in a row). We'll stick with Troy for now, but would it stun us if WKU won the tourney title? No.___________________________

I wasn't saying they can't win it....I was saying that based on history, your prediction of Troy is a very BOLD statement if they DO win the Sun Belt conference tourney.

96% is actually terrible, considering 63/65 is 97%, and they are counting the automatic bids. I've played this game since 1996, and never missed more than 2 bids. OTOH, I can't seed worth beans on my own, and that's the real challenge of a bracketologist.

Rainmaker - that's a doomsday scenario for the Virginia Techs of the world. In the scenario you mentioned, the pecking order would be Utah State (most likely to get an at-large), St. Mary's, and then ODU (least likely). The Monarchs would probably be NIT-bound if all that happened.

If UNLV and SDSU both win this weekend (which they should), then the Rebels would have to lose in the first round of the MWC tourney and SDSU would have to make the final for the Aztecs to leap-frog them.

It's going to take a miracle for the A-10 to get five bids at this point - Temple, Xavier, and Richmond would all have to lose before the final. We like Dayton's chances at making a deep run better than we like Saint Louis'.

I can not understand the infatuation with Ohio State (this isn't directed entirely at you either, just know you guys would respond) ... but how, right now could anyone possibly justify them being seeded over Temple or even Maryland. It's mind boggling to me.

--------------------------------

I'm a PSU alum and I've seen Temple and OSU play this season. When Turner has played this season, OSU is 21-4 (12-2 in BT play). Temple overall is 25-5 (13-2 in A-10 play), which is comparable but probably a little worse. OSU played my alma mater twice and handily won both games. Temple played us (at their place) and won by 3. OSU has also not lost a game by 32 (cough), despite playing road games at 3 of the toughest venues in basketball (WVU, PUR, MSU) and winning all 3.

I'd have to agree with MattLion. As a fellow PSU fan/alum and resident of southeast Pennsylvania, I've seen more than my fair share of both Temple and OSU games. OSU is just a deeper and better team with Turner. They have 4 players averaging double digits and Turner has the ability to completely take over a game.

I'm not going to pile on Temple because of that awful loss to Kansas, but with Evan Turner, OSU has looked better than Temple. OSU has 1 bad loss with Turner (against UNC, who apparently owns the Big Ten's top teams), but they have more impressive wins than Temple does overall. It's true Temple probably has the most impressive win against Nova, but OSU beat Cal, FSU, Purdue, and Michigan State. Temple has wins over Nova, VT, Seton Hall, and Xavier. OSU's wins are much more impressive.

To add to the "A10 isn't that weak compared to Big 12" argument- Oklahoma State lost to Rhode Island in January, as well.And yes, I do know that Xavier did lose to two top Big 12 schools. Well, I will admit that Xavier is not as good as Kansas State, but the Baylor-Xavier game was pretty tight throughout.

I'm not a Temple hater, I just think OSU is better. I think Temple could end up as a 3-seed and I think the A-10 should, and will, get 4 bids and every A-10 team can win its first game. Xavier and Richmond are tough matchups and Rhody is occasionally an explosive club (the best team in New England this year).

I definitely think the Big 12 is better than the A-10, but not by so much that the top 7 Big 12 teams are all better than the A-10. I would take Ohio State over Temple as well, which is why I think Ohio State would be a #2 seed, and Temple is fine as a #3 seed.

Rhode Island has lost 4 out of their last 6. They did beat OSU -which is probably the best team on their schedule. Sad considering OSU is one of the "weaker" teams coming out of the Big 12...

Richmond did beat Mizzou - in November. Remember, the same month the Spiders lost to William & Mary. And how did Richmond get blown out by Charlotte??

Bottom line, A-10 does not scare anyone. Don't fool yourself. You could probably take down OSU but not the top 6. Think anyone can handle our 6th best team, Texas? KU, KSU, Tex A&M, Baylor, and Mizzou are hands down better.

Ask Temple what they thought of KU - or should I say real competition.

JeffL, Richmond also beat Florida and Mississippi State. Teams would be unwise to overlook Richmond and Xavier. They have the ability to make the sweet 16. Temple is very deserving of a 4 seed. If BCS teams think they are so much better than the A-10 teams in the tournament, then prove it!

Mark it down, Texas A&M will be a Sweet 16 team. They are playing really good ball right now. New Mexico has talent (14 straight wins) and the Washington loss was influenced by a team that suffered a horrible injury to one of their best senior players.

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.